Unjustifiable delay in executing a detention order can violate statutory provisions, warranting its quashing.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

27.09.2025 passed against one Ancy K. V. (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. The said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 10.12.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that on 02.09.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, the 4th respondent, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act, before the jurisdictional authority. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is Crime No.658/2025 of Kongad Police Station, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Smt. Radhika S. Anil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order of detention was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel further submitted that, though the impugned order was passed on 27.09.2025, the same was executed only on 04.10.2025. According to the counsel, the said delay in executing the order is unjustifiable and will breach the statutory provision regarding the execution of such an order. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that the detention order was passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite subjective as well as objective satisfaction, and hence no interference is warranted in the impugned order. According to the learned Government Pleader, no unreasonable delay has been occasioned in executing the detention order, and the contention of the petitioner, sticking on the delay in executing the order, is devoid of any merit.

6. As evident from the records, altogether two cases in which the detenu got involved have formed the basis for passing the detention order, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The incident that led to the registration of the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity occurred on 26.07.2025, and on the same day, the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It was on 02.09.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that a proposal was forwarded by the sponsoring authority for the initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu. Subsequently, on 27.09.2025, the detention order was passed. The sequence of the events narrated above reveals that there was no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.

7. However, from a perusal of the records, it is evident that although the impugned order was passed on 27.09.2025, the same was executed only on 04.10.2025. While considering the said delay, it cannot be ignored that evidently the detenu got bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity only on 24.01.2026. The detention order was passed on 27.09.2025, much prior to the release of the detenu from jail. Evidently, when the impugned order was passed, the detenu was under judicial custody. As the detenu was available in the jail,